http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  2336 of 2008

PETITIONER: State of Karnataka and another

RESPONDENT: Sri R. Vivekananda Swamy

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/04/2008

BENCH: S.B. SINHA & V.S. SIRPURKAR

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T REPORTABLE

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2336 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2593 of 2006) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2335 OF 2006 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1387 of 2006) State of Rajasthan and others                                         \005 Appellants         Versus Smt. Savitri Upadhyay                                                \005 Respondent  

S.B. SINHA, J.

1.      Leave granted in both the matters.  

2.      Interpretation and/or application of Medical Benefit Rules applicable  in the State of Karnataka as also in the State of Rajasthan is in question  before us in these appeals which arise out of the judgment and order dated  20th June, 2005 passed by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in  Writ Petition No. 10942 of 2005 and that of the judgment and order dated 4th  August, 2005 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan,  Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6502 of 2004  respectively.

3.      Respondent in the Karnataka case is an officer working in the Office  of the Department of Commercial Taxes.  He underwent ’Coronary Artery’  Bypass Surgery in the Wockhardt Hospital and Heart Institute having been  admitted on 19th June, 2000.  A sum of Rs.1,50,600/- was said to have been  incurred by him by way of medical expenses.  He claimed re-imbursement  thereof.  The State of Karnataka sanctioned and reimbursed a sum of  Rs.39,207/-.  Feeling aggrieved, a writ petition was filed which, by reason of  the impugned judgment, has been allowed.   

4.      Rajasthan case, relates to one Ajay Upadhyay, who was a Judicial  officer.  He had been suffering from some kidney problems.  Respondent  herein is his mother.  Ajay Upadhyay was being treated for renal failure in  1997.  He was referred to AIIMS for kidney transplantation by the SMS  Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur.  However, as AIIMS showed its  inability to admit him because of non-availability of bed.  Transplantation of  kidney was carried out in Batra Hospital, Delhi, in 1997.  Respondent, who  was also an employee of the State claimed reimbursement of the said  medical expenses.  However, a sum of Rs.50,000/- was allegedly found  admissible for the purpose of reimbursement out of the total claim of a sum  of Rs.2.11 lacs.  Respondent, however, claimed that the entire sum may be  reimbursed.  Other medical expenses incurred by Ajay Upadhyay, as follow  up measures, have been reimbursed to the respondent herein.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

       Ajay Upadhyay joined Rajasthan Judicial Service in the year 2000.  In  February, 2003 he got himself treated in Batra Hospital.  Allegedly his case  was not referred therefor by the SMS Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur.           As he was not treated by AIIMS, he filed a writ petition in the High  Court of Delhi for a direction to admit him therein.  However, because of an  emergent situation, he got himself admitted in the Batra Hospital.  The said  writ petition was withdrawn.   

In the month of May, 2003 he again came to Delhi and got himself  admitted and treated in Batra Hospital.  He filed a representation before the  Registrar General of the High Court of Rajasthan that on account of the  sudden demise of his maternal uncle, he had to go to Delhi and as he fell ill  there, went straightaway to Batra Hospital.  He, therefore, prayed for  reimbursement of his medical expenses incurred on that occasion also.   

       Indisputably, however, the Principal and Controller, SMS Medical  College and Hospital, on or about 5th July, 2003, referred him to AIIMS.   Allegedly in the reference order it was mentioned that the same was subject  to medical expenses with a ceiling of Rs.10,000/- only.  Ajay Upadhyay  obtained treatment in the Batra Hospital from 4th July to 29th July, 2003.  He  unfortunately breathed his last on 7th November, 2003.  Respondent claimed  medical reimbursement to the tune of Rs.6,52,148/- with interest.  Only a  sum of Rs.75,000/- was, however, sanctioned by the State of Rajasthan as  being admissible, purported to be in terms of the Rules.   

5.      Feeling aggrieved, a writ petition was filed in the High Court of  Rajasthan which by reason of the impugned judgment and order has been  allowed directing :-                          "       As a result of the aforesaid discussion the writ  petition succeeds and same is allowed.  The respondents  are directed to release the amount of Rs.6,52,148/- in  favour of the Petitioner of the medical expenses bills of  Batra Hospital, New Delhi, where his son late Shri Ajay  Upadhyay, an officer of the Rajasthan Judicial Service  was treated, within a period of two months from the date  of receipt of the copy of this order.  The respondents are  further directed to pay to the petitioner on the aforesaid  amount the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the  date of submission of the first medical bill for  reimbursement of the amount of Batra Hospital, New  Delhi, till the payment thereof is made."

6.      Before embarking on the contentions raised by learned counsel in  these appeals, we may notice the relevant Rules framed by the States of  Karnataka and Rajasthan.  

7.      The State of Karnataka in exercise of its power conferred upon it by  the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and in supersession of  the Karnataka Government Servants’ (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1957  framed the Karnataka Government Servants’ (Medical Attendance) Rules,  1963 (for short the 1963 Rules).   

Rule 2 of the 1963 Rules provides that the same shall apply mutatis  mutandis to the family of a Government servant as would apply to the  Government servant himself.  The explanations appended thereto reads :-

"2.     Application. \026  Explanation .- I.       For the purposes of these rules,  "family" means.-

(i)     the wife or husband ;

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

(ii)    the father and mother including step-mother; and  

(iii)   children including adopted children and step- children, of a Government servant who are wholly  dependent on such Government servant.

Explanation II. \026 For the purpose of this sub-rule,. The  father and mother including step-mother shall be  regarded as wholly dependent on the Government servant  if they ordinarily reside with him and their total monthly  income does not exceed two thousand rupees."

       "Authorised hospitals" and "medical institutions" have been defined  in Rule 3(aa) to mean the hospitals and medical institutions specified in  Schedule I.  Rule 7 entitles a Government servant to receive free medical  treatment in such Government Hospitals at or near the place where he falls  ill, as can, in the opinion of the authorized medical attendant, provide the  necessary and suitable treatment.  "Authorised medical attendant" has been  defined in Section 3(a) to mean a medical officer who is a Gazetted  Government servant working in a Government hospital or Government  Medical institution and various other authorities as specified therein.  Rule  8(1), although is not relevant for our purposes, may be noticed which is in  the following terms :-

"8.     Admission to and treatment in wards. \026 (1) the  patients who under these rules, are eligible for treatment  in a particular class of paying or special ward, may get  themselves treated in any higher class of ward, by paying  the difference in the rates for the two classes of wards."    

Proviso appended to sub-rule (3) of Rule 8, which was introduced by  reason of the Notification dated 22nd January, 2001, reads thus :-

"       Provided that notwithstanding anything contained  in these rules the Government Servant and his family  shall be eligible for treatment in the wards of the  authorized hospitals and medical institutions specified in  Schedule I as per the rates specified in the Table below.-

Range of Pay Category of  Ward / Class of  accommodations to  which entitled Maximum ward  charges / room rent  to which entitled

(1) (2) (3) (i) Upto Rs.4,350  per month General Ward Rs.100/- per day (ii) Rs.4,351 to  Rs.11,840 per  month, Semi-Private Ward

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

Rs.200/- per day (iii) Rs.11,841 and  above Private Ward Rs.500/- per day

Rule 14 specifies as to how and in what manner, the reimbursement of  medical expenses is to be carried out.  

Rule 15 provides for claims for reimbursement of medical charges.  Rule 31 empowers the Government to relax the provisions of the said Rules.   

8.      The judgment of the Tribunal, which was affirmed by the High Court,  was based on the premise that persons similarly situated who had taken  treatment from Wockhardt Hospital and Heart Institute had been given the  benefit of the reimbursement of the medical bills, although the respondent  was denied of the said benefit.  

9.      The Government of Rajasthan also in exercise of its powers conferred  upon it by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India made Rules  known as Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1970 (in  short the 1970 Rules).   

Rule 2 provides for the extent of application of the said Rules which  includes all government servants.  Rule 3(1) defines "Authorised Medical  Attendant"   "Authorised medical attendant" has been defined in Section  3(a) to mean a Medical Officer of the Rajasthan Medical Department on  duty in a hospital or dispensary and various other authorities as specified  therein.

"6.     Medical attendance and treatment outside  Rajasthan.- (1) A Government servants including  members of his family  posted to a station or sent on duty  or spending leave or otherwise at a station outside  Rajasthan in India and who falls ill shall be entitled to  free medical attendance and treatment as an indoor and  outdoor patient in a Hospital maintained by the Central  Government or other State Government on the scale and  conditions which would be admissible to him under these  rules, had he been on duty or on leave in Rajasthan.

(2)     For the purpose of this rule "Authorised Medical  Attendant" in respect of a Government servant or class of  Government servant at a station outside Rajasthan shall  mean an officer of Medical Department of Central or  other State Government (as the case may be) on duty in a  Government hospital or Dispensary at that station.

(3)     The charges paid by the Government Servant  posted at Delhi to the following private hospitals/clinics  for X-Ray, Pathological, Baceterilogical, Radiological  tests and other kind of investigations which are  considered necessary by the doctor of the State  Government posted in Delhi, shall be re-imbursed:-

1.      Sunderlal Jain Charitable Hospital, Ashok Vihar. 2.      Massonic Charitable Polyclinic, Janpath, and 3.      Sir Gangaram Hospital, Rajendra Nagar.

7.      Treatment of a disease for which treatment is not  available in the State. \026 (1)  A Government servant and  the members of his family suffering from a disease for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

which treatment is not available in any Government  hospital in the State shall be entitled to medical  attendance and treatment to the extent indicated in sub- rule (2) of this rule in a Hospital/Institution outside the  State recognized by the Government, provided that it is  certified by the Principal of a Medical College/Director  of Medical & Health Services on the basis of opinion of  the Authorised Medical Attendant to the effect that the  treatment of a particular disease from which the patient is  suffering is not available in any Government Hospital in  the State and it is considered absolutely essential for the  recovery of the patient to have treatment at a hospital  outside the Sate.

(2)     The following charges/expenses shall be  reimbursable:-

(a)     Cost (including Sales Tax) of Allopathic Drugs,  Medicines, Vaccines, Sera or other therapeutic  substances reimbursable under these rules.

(b)     Sums actually paid to the Hospital/Institution on  account of medical attendance and treatment  including charges for surgical operations and  ordinary nursing facility.

(c)     Travelling allowance for journey by rail/road from  duty point at the station at which the patient falls  ill to the place of treatment outside the State and  back to a single fare of the class to which his  classification entitles him under Rajasthan  Travelling Allowance Rules.  Such traveling  allowance shall also be admissible for an attendant,  if the Authorised Medical Attendant certifies in  writing that it is unsafe for the patient to travel  unattended and that an attendant is necessary to  accompany the patient to the place of treatment  and back.

(3)     The facility of medical attendance and treatment in  the type of cases mentioned in sub-rule (1) can be had at  any of Hospitals/Institutions mentioned in Appendix 11.

(4)     For the purpose of reimbursement, the original  receipts issued by such Hospital/Institutions and  vouchers of medicines etc. shall be countersigned by the  Authorised Medical Attendant of Government Hospital  on whose advice the treatment outside the State was  undertaken."   

It does not appear that 1970 Rules provide for any power of  relaxation.

10.     Mr. Hegde, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of  Karnataka and Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, the learned Additional Advocate  General, appearing on behalf of the State of Rajasthan submitted that having  regard to the Rules framed by the States, the validity whereof is not being in  question and in fact having been upheld by this Court, the High Courts of  Karnataka and Rajasthan committed serious errors in issuing the impugned  directions.  

11.     Mr. Bhat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent in  Karnataka case, would, on the other hand, submit that the power of  relaxation should have been exercised by the appropriate authority

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

judiciously and in a case of this nature, Article 14 of the Constitution of  India is attracted.  It was urged that as a large number of non Government  Hospitals are now included in the list of hospitals, the impugned judgment  should not be interfered with.

12.     Ms. Shoba, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent in  Rajasthan case took us to the entire factual aspect of the matter and  submitted that the High Court judgment is unexceptionable, keeping in view  the fact that whatever is required to be paid is reimbursement of the bills for  the month of May-June, 2003, although the State has reimbursed the bills for  medical expenses for February, 2003, July, 2003 and also October, 2003.  It  was urged that as even in relation to the reimbursement of the medical bills  for the year 1997, the State has favourably responded, the High Court cannot  be said to have committed any error in issuing the impugned directions,  particularly when correctness of the bills was verified and recommended by  the High Court.  

13.     Law operating in this field, as is propounded by Courts from time to  time and relevant for our purpose, may now be taken note of.

14.     In Surjit Singh   vs.  State of Punjab and others : (1996) 2 SCC 336  this Court in a case where the appellant therein while in England fell ill and  being a case of emergency case was admitted in Dudley Road Hospital,  Birmingham.  After proper medical diagnosis he was suggested treatment at  a named alternate place.   He was admitted and undergone bypass surgery in  Humana Hospital, Wellington, London.   He claimed reimbursement for the  amount spent by him.  In the peculiar facts of that case it was held :- "11. It is otherwise important to bear in mind that self  preservation of one’s life is the necessary concomitant of  the right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the  Constitution of India, fundamental in nature, sacred,  precious and inviolable. The importance and validity of  the duty and right to self-preservation has a species in the  right of self defence in criminal law. Centuries ago  thinkers of this Great Land conceived of such right and  recognised it. Attention can usefully be drawn to verses  17, 18, 20 and 22 in Chapter 16 of the Garuda Purana (A  Dialogue suggested between the Divine and Garuda, the  bird) in the words of the Divine :   17. Vinaa dehena kasyaapi canpurushaartho na vidyate  Tasmaaddeham dhanam rakshetpunyakarmaani  saadhayet                                 

Without the body how can one obtain the objects of  human life?  Therefore protecting the body which is the  wealth, one should perform the deeds of merit.

18. Rakshayetsarvadaatmaanamaatmaa sarvasya  bhaajanam Rakshane yatnamaatishthejje    vanbhaadraani pashyati                 

One should protect his body which is responsible for  every thing. He who protects himself by all efforts, will  see many auspicious occasions in life.

20. Sharirarakshanopaayaah  kriyante sarvadaa  budhaih Necchanti cha punastyaagamapi   kushthaadiroginah                                           

The wise always undertake the protective measures for  the body. Even the persons suffering from leprosy and  other diseases do not wish to get rid of                                                    the body.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

22. Aatmaiva   yadi   naatmaanamahitebhyo    nivaarayet       Konsyo hitakarastasmaadaatmaanam taarayishyati                     

If one does not prevent what is unpleasent to himself,  who else will do it? Therefore one should do what is  good to himself."  

We may, however, notice that in that case, before this Court, Rules  framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, were  not in force.  What were in force were the Policies regarding reimbursement  of medical expenses framed by the State of Punjab on 25th January, 1991 and  8th October, 1991.  

15.     This Court, however, considered the validity of a rule in regard to  reimbursement of the medical expenses viz-a-viz the fundamental right of a  citizen in terms of new policy evolved by the State of Punjab limiting claim  for reimbursement in State of Punjab and others  vs.  Ram Lubhaya Bagga  and others : (1998) 4 SCC 117, opining :-   "23. When we speak about a right, it corelates to a duty  upon another, individual, employer, Government or  authority. In other words, the right of one is an obligation  of another. Hence the right of a citizen to live under  Article 21 casts obligation on the State. This obligation is  further reinforced under Article 47, it is for the State to  secure health to its citizen as its primary duty. No doubt  Government is rendering this obligation by opening  Government hospitals and health centers, but in order to  make it meaningful, it has to be within the reach of its  people, as far as possible, to reduce the queue of waiting  lists, and it has to provide all facilities for which an  employee looks for at another hospital. Its up-keep;  maintenance and cleanliness has to be beyond aspersion.  To employ the best of talents and tone up its  administration to give effective contribution. Also bring  in awareness in welfare of hospital staff for their  dedicated service, give them periodical, medico-ethical  and service oriented training, not only at the entry point  but also during the whole tenure of their service. Since it  is one of the most sacrosanct and valuable rights of a  citizen and equally sacrosanct sacred obligation of the  State, every citizen of this welfare State looks towards  the State for it to perform its this obligation with top  priority including by way of allocation of sufficient  funds. This in turn will not only secure the right of its  citizen to the best of their satisfaction but in turn will  benefit the State in achieving its social, political and  economical goal. For every return there has to be  investment. Investment needs resources and finances. So  even to protect this sacrosanct right finances are an  inherent requirement. Harnessing such resources needs  top priority."

However, having regard to the fact that the medical facilities  continued to be given and an employee was given free choice to get  treatment from any private hospital in India but the amount of payment for  reimbursement was regulated, it was opined :-

"29.     No State or any country can have unlimited  resources to spend on any of its project. That is why it  only approves its projects to the extent it is feasible. The  same holds good for providing medical facilities to its  citizen including its employees. Provision of facilities

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

cannot be unlimited. It has to be to the extent finance  permit. If no scale or rate is fixed then in case private  clinics or hospitals increase their rate to exorbitant scales,  the State would be bound to reimburse the same. Hence  we come to the conclusion that principle of fixation of  rate and scale under this new policy is justified and  cannot be held to be violative of Article 21 or Article 47  of the Constitution of India."

16.     The said principle was reiterated in State of State of Punjab and others   vs.  Mohan Lal Jindal : (2001) 9 SCC 217.

17.     The question came up for consideration before this Court in  Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Association and others  vs.  Union of India  and others : (2006) 8 SCC 399 wherein a Constitution Bench of this Court  had the occasion to notice Ram Lubhaya Bagga (supra).  Agreeing therewith  it was opined :-

"       In our considered opinion through the right to  medical aid is a fundamental right of all citizens  including ex-servicemen guaranteed by Article 21 of the  Constitution, framing of scheme for ex-servicemen and  asking them to pay "one time contribution" neither  violates Part III nor is it inconsistent with Part IV of the  Constitution.  Ex-servicemen who are getting pension  have been asked to become members of ECHS by  making "one time contribution" of reasonable amount  (ranging from Rs.1800 to Rs.18,000/-.  To us, this cannot  be held illegal, unlawful, arbitrary or otherwise  unreasonable."            18.     In view of the aforementioned settled principles of law there cannot  be any doubt that the Rules regarding reimbursement of medical claim of an  employee when he obtains treatment from a hospital of his choice can be  made limited.  Such a rule furthermore having been framed under the  proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India constitutes conditions of  service in terms whereof on the one hand the employee would be granted the  facility of medical aid free of cost from the recognized government hospitals  and on the other he, at his option, may get himself treated from other  recognized hospitals/institutions subject of course to the conditions that the  reimbursement by the State therefor would be limited.  

19.     In the Karnataka case, however, it is necessary to take into  consideration the provisions of Rule 31 of 1963 Rules which confers an  unequivocal power of relaxation to the authorised authorities specified  therein.  A public authority may exercise its power of relaxation only where  there exists a provision therfor.  [See -   Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and  Ors.  vs.   Sajal Kumar Roy and Ors : (2006) 8 SCC 671 Pitta Naveen  Kumar and others.  vs.  Raja Narasaiah Zangiti and others (2006) 10 SCC  261 ].

20.     It, however, goes without saying that while exercising such a power,  the authority must act judiciously keeping in mind the purport and object  thereof.  Considerations therefor, although may not partake a mathematical  exactable but should always be fair and reasonable.  Although it may not be  possible for an employee to enforce a purported right on the premise that  another person had obtained reimbursement for a similar kind of treatment,  ordinarily fair procedure envisages a broad similarity.  If any person has  been shown any undue favour, we may add, by itself may not be a ground to  favour another but when such a contention is raised, the State should be able  to demonstrate a fair treatment.  It is possible to draw a distinction on the  basis of several factors, emergent situation being one of them.  So viewed,  we do not find that the State of Karnataka had acted arbitrarily.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

21.     Rajasthan case, however, involves some disputed questions of fact.   Aay Upadhyay was a Judicial Officer.  Indisputably he was suffering from a  serious disease.  The contention of the respondent to the effect that the  appellant herein herself being a government employee was able to obtain  reimbursement of the amount spent towards his treatment as far as back in  1977.  We do not see any reason why he should not be reimbursed for the  later period.  It is true that ordinarily a government employee may have to  get himself treated in AIIMS; it being a pioneer super-speciality institution,  but we cannot also shut our eyes to the fact that for one reason or the other,  Ajay Upadhyay could not be admitted in AIIMS.  A writ petition was filed  in the Delhi High Court which, because of passage of time, although was  withdrawn but it is difficult for us to arrive at one conclusion or the other  only on the basis of the averments made by the parties to the writ petition  before the High Court; one of them being AIIMS itself.  He developed  trouble even after joining judicial service.  He admittedly was referred to  AIIMS.  Whether such reference was made in February, 2003 or July, 2003  may be a matter of dispute.  But if without any order of reference in  February, 2003 reimbursement of expenditure incurred in February, 2005  has been effected and similarly for July and October \026 November, 2003 the  respondent was reimbursed, we do not see any reason as to why  reimbursement of the medical expenses for the period May and June, 2003  would not be allowed.    

22.     The State might be fighting this case on principle.  It may be correct  in its view.  Applying the Rules strictly, respondent might not have been  entitled for reimbursement for the period subsequent to the date of reference  and not prior thereto.  But as indicated hereinbefore there is is no reason to  ignore the statement made in para 2 of the additional affidavit filed on behalf  of the respondent, which is to the following effect :-

"2)     That the State Govt. had allowed the full  reimbursment of medical bills of late Shri Ajay  Upadhyay incurred in Batra Hospital, New Delhi, for the  period of treatment in Batra Hospital, from 04.02.03 to  10.02.03 and from 04.11.03 to 07.11.03, and as such the  reimbursement of medical bills of late Shri Ajay  Upadhyay are still pending from 13.05.03 to 21.10.03  amounting to Rs.5,98,406.75 of Batra Hospital, New  Delhi."

23.     What, however, is requited to be taken into consideration is the three  bills amounting to Rs,5,98,406.75 for the period 13.05.03 to 21.10.03.   

24.     There appears to be some discrepancies in regard to the said bills.  We  are not concerned with the 1997 bills.  Our attention has been drawn to the  following bills.   

       The first Bill was of Rs.42,197.00 for the period 04.03.03 to 10.02.03  As noticed hereinbefore the said bill has already been paid.   

       The second bill is for Rs.3,16,311.750 for the period 13.05.03 to  11.06.03.  The said bill remains unpaid.   

The third bill is for reimbursement of Rs.1,15,619.00 for the period  04.07.03 to 29.07.03.   

The fourth bill does not appear to be on record.  But from the  respondent’s letter dated 21st April, 2006 it appears that the same was for a  sum of Rs.31,544/- for the period 04.11.03 to 07.11.03 which has already  been paid.           25.     The dispute, thus, centres round the aforementioned two bills  amounting to Rs.3,16.311.75 ps. and Rs.1,15,619.00.  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

26.     In a case of this nature, we are of the opinion, that having laid down  the law for the future that claim for reimbursement must be made only in  terms of the Rules and not dehors the same, and more so, when there is no  power of relaxation, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the  Constitution of India, we direct the States of Karnataka and Rajasthan to pay  the balance amounts.  However, this order shall not be treated as a  precedent.   

We may, however, state that the reason for such a direction is that so  far as the State of Karnataka is concerned, it has enlisted a large number of  hospitals as approved medical institutions enabling its employees to obtain  treatment therefrom.   

27.     So far as the Rajasthan case is concerned unlike the State of  Karnataka there is no provision for exemption for payment of portion of the  amount of bill which would be corresponding to the costs which would have  been otherwise incurred by the employee in obtaining treatment from  AIIMS.  It is furthermore evident that ex-post facto sanction had been  granted.  The State did not disclose the basis for such grant.  The grant was  not dehors the Rules.   Ajay Upadhyay indisputably obtained treatment at  Batra Hospital from time to time.  He being a judicial officer, the bills  submitted by him had been verified by the Registrar of the High Court.   Recommendations had also been made by the High Court for reimbursement  of the said bills.   

28.     We, therefore, are of the opinion that in order to do complete justice  to the parties, we pass the order as proposed hereinbefore and direct the  States of Karnataka and Rajasthan to pay the balance amounts to the  respondent.

29.     The appeals are disposed of with the above directions.  In the facts  and circumstances of the cases there shall be no order as to costs.